The loss of youth is, at least to me, one of the greatest personal tragedies. It happens to everyone but it’s still a profound loss, especially when that loss is forced – as in the case of Paul and his peers. What really stood out to me was the fact that, in this story, it wasn’t the encroaching war itself that convinced these young soldiers to abandon their youth. It was their teacher, who himself is able to, due to his age and status, shirk the front lines while putting his students in incredible peril. Paul states that he and his fellow students were let down by these authority figures they were taught to trust (p. 12).
His teacher, Kantorek, “would say that we stood on the threshold of life” (p. 20). These young men had their entire lives ahead of them. Yet the war has taken advantage of that youthful outlook and stripped them of everything, leaving them with no identity but that of soldiers. When they first enlisted, they were eager and enthusiastic, even romanticizing the war (p. 21 – 22). But no longer. They have been forced to adapt, to abandon their youth. As Paul says in Chapter 5 – “We are not youth any longer… we were eighteen and had begun to love life and the world; and we had to shoot it to pieces” (p. 87 – 88). It’s an extremely poignant and haunting idea.
I completely agree with your synopsis and the cowardly hypocrisy feed to Paul and his friends by their school teacher and every adult in their lives. One of the first things that came to mind when I finished reading the chapters was that WW1 was a power-hungry mans war fought by children. In chapter two when they spoke about how young and frail they look/feel without their uniforms as they shower and yet putting on their uniforms creates this manly facade of a soldier’s frame when in reality they are just kids. These were children that were lied to and bought into this idea they were fighting for the greatness of their country when they were simply doing the dirty work no one wanted to talk about. They were shamed for not enlisting but those who enlisted were either slaughtered or scarred for life. It was truly a no win situation. The book humanizes these soldiers who were just children and depicts the awful realities of war. Tragically beautiful book.
I find it especially poignant in the scene where they consider killing the man (boy) who was struck in the hip (pgs. 71-73). The way they describe him in this moment is interesting as well–they call him “lad,” “youngster,” “kid,” and even a “young innocent” near the end of the scene despite both Paul and Kat being his age. What really intrigues me about this scene, though, is the use of “it” to refer to him, as though he is a small, pitiful creature; no longer man nor boy. I think the diminutive terms used to describe his youth just a few lines earlier could also double in dehumanizing him. Because he is a boy, it would be better to kill him before he should ever have the misfortune of becoming a cognizant and miserable man (not that he would have lived much longer, though).